Federer reveals his honest opinion on a young Novak Djokovic and admits he lacked respect

[messiahrobins]

Fed in 2018 at almost 37 was 8 slams ahead of Djokovic. In a normal era that lead would have sufficed. Not his fault everyone born after Delpo was a waste

Yes, which is why i think the Djokovic losses to Alcaraz and Sinner are very relevant in the past12 months

 

[sportsfan1]

Not exactly, this is promotional material for the Amazon documentary on Fed's retirement that's coming out in a week.

It seems Fed does want to mend bridges with Novak by addressing some past grievances. There was a similar piece on the Telegraph yesterday.

The article at the end says during the 2024 aus open, Novak was asked which top players were critical of him when he started and he said it's been a while but he remembers only one - Federer.

But it's possible they're both getting old and want to move past the bickering.

 

[CHillTennis]

Fed in 2018 at almost 37 was 8 slams ahead of Djokovic. In a normal era that lead would have sufficed. Not his fault everyone born after Delpo was a waste

This is a valid point that you brought up. Novak did not have a credible rival (apart from Nadal) after 2020.

 

[Better_Call_Raul]

No, this thread is not new information. This thread is like all the others. One of the Big 3 players says some that can be reinvented then spun into a false narrative by the people here because they only care about boasting on and on each player’s achievements. You mean the same documentary no one cared about here because Roger retired at the dreaded Laver Cup until these quotes were discovered, which has spread like a wildfire on social media for Big 3 fans to “interpret“ as they see fit.

It is high time that Fed apologized for his disrespectfulness and frequent questioning of our Djoker's injuries.
But we suppose that this statement is as close as we will ever get to a Fed apology.

 

[GabeT]

Fed in 2018 at almost 37 was 8 slams ahead of Djokovic. In a normal era that lead would have sufficed. Not his fault everyone born after Delpo was a waste

But we need to adjust by age. At the time Fed was 37, Novak was 31.

At age 32 (meaning for each of the big 3 the end of the season each turned 32) they were all basically tied. 17-17-16. If you take a less exacting view of “tied” and accept up to 4 slams difference they were all tied at age 29. Yes, I know 4 slams is more than most players will win in their whole career but this is the Big 3 we are talking about. That’s a couple of years of slams for them.

so at 37 if Fed was looking at the numbers he had plenty to worry about in terms of the other two catching up. Age adjusted Nadal surpassed Fed at age 33 and Novak surpassed Fed at age 34.

 

[FlyingSaucer]

Yep. Whereas Nadal will never have any regrets about his career (he overachieved due to his insane work ethic and mindset), Federer will i think, as the brutal reality is he was far too complacent around 2008-2013 and dare i say exhibited an aloofness to Djokovic and Nadal as he refused to adapt his game to the obvious challenge they posed him almost as if to do so would be a sign of weakness that his game wasnt good enough. it cost him many slams in truth as had he made the changes he did in 2017 about 10 years earlier i think he would have been the Slam race winner by a comfortable margin.
Deep down i am sure he knows he is a better tennis player than either Nadal and Djokovic were in terms of natural ability and that must be frustrate him as he will know it was his pride and stubborness as you correctly point out that probably cost him the Slam record.

It was HIS very own achievements that gave rise to the slam race in the first place, no?

 

[No_Kwan_Do]

I think that was fairly obvious. He was publicly dismissive of Murray as well as they were both rising through the ranks on the ATP. Federer hated his authority as the top dog being challenged in the 2000s.

 

[TennisXpert@2023]

I think that was fairly obvious. He was publicly dismissive of Murray as well as they were both rising through the ranks on the ATP. Federer hated his authority as the top dog being challenged in the 2000s.

Ha! Ha! When it rains, it pours. Apparently, Murray and Djokovic don’t hold grudges like their ”fans”. I think it’s funny their fans are mad at Federer because he simply didn’t move out the way.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

I know you're busy, Novak. I heard being a third wheel is very time-consuming.

 

[socallefty]

I wonder which of these laughs was closest to Federer’s laugh when he thought of Djokovic’s western FH grip in those days!

I wonder which of these laughs is closest to Djokovic’s laugh when he thinks of Federer’s BH (especially the return ranked #102 on the ATP career leaderboard) these days!

 

[Turning Pro]

Fed did exceptional vs Djoker really from 2006-2012. Especially in 2011/2012 (Rg11, Wimby 12) considering that was Noel prime/peak years. After that he was definitely out of his prime after 2012 so it's obvious against an Atg he would lose.

At the Same age Fed vs Nole would in a best of 10 series, be 7-3 or 6-4 to Fed across all surfaces on balance.

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

And that’s why Fed dropped to number 3. Underestimating players and coasting. And stubbornness. Pride before the fall

Fed was one of if not the most naturally gifted tennis player ever (next to Mac) but this shows mindset and ego is just as important if not more so. You need to be a killer out there and keep improving where you weaknesses are and dont take anyone for granted

ROFLMAO at deep diving into the cause of failure like a damned plane crash.

 

[vex]

Fed in 2018 at almost 37 was 8 slams ahead of Djokovic. In a normal era that lead would have sufficed. Not his fault everyone born after Delpo was a waste

Alcaraz and Sinner are significantly better players than Delpo. Even Med has had a better career.

 

[mike danny]

Alcaraz and Sinner are significantly better players than Delpo. Even Med has had a better career.

I wasn't talking about Alcaraz and Sinner.

Med has a better career, but he's not a better player.

 

[mike danny]

But we need to adjust by age. At the time Fed was 37, Novak was 31.

At age 32 (meaning for each of the big 3 the end of the season each turned 32) they were all basically tied. 17-17-16. If you take a less exacting view of “tied” and accept up to 4 slams difference they were all tied at age 29. Yes, I know 4 slams is more than most players will win in their whole career but this is the Big 3 we are talking about. That’s a couple of years of slams for them.

so at 37 if Fed was looking at the numbers he had plenty to worry about in terms of the other two catching up. Age adjusted Nadal surpassed Fed at age 33 and Novak surpassed Fed at age 34.

Which probably would not have happened since Novak would probably have not won 8 more majors against a better generation, which was my point.

 

[Federev]

DAY 424,751,031 at TTW:

Djokovic is better
No, Federer is better!
Nu-uh!! It’s Novak
No way! It’s Roger
Djokovic is the best
Federer is
Novak
Roger
No way!!!
Yes way!!!!
No
Yes!!
Federer
Novak!
Roger is better!!!
Shut up!
You suck!
You!
No you!
Djokovic is better
No, Federer is better!
Nu-uh!! It’s Novak
No way! It’s Roger
Djokovic is the best
Federer is
Novak
Roger
No way!!!
Yes way!!!!
No
Yes!!
Federer
Novak!
Roger is better!!!
Shut up!
You suck!
You!
No you!
Djokovic is better
No, Federer is better!
Nu-uh!! It’s Novak
No way! It’s Roger
Djokovic is the best
Federer is
Novak
Roger
No way!!!
Yes way!!!!
No
Yes!!
Federer
Novak!
Roger is better!!!
Shut up!
You suck!
You!
No you!
Federer!

 

[Apun94]

Nice try, your reply means you know Federer didn’t say any of this and these so-called news sources are sending out misleading information so you have a manufactured discussion.

That is not even close to what im saying. whats wrong with you

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Alcaraz and Sinner are significantly better players than Delpo. Even Med has had a better career.

In what universe is Sinner a significantly better player than del Potro?

JMDP had his career destroyed by injuries and competed with peak Big 3. Put him now on tour healthy and he does everything Sinner is doing for sure and very likely what Alcaraz is doing too.

We are talking about someone who won a slam at 20yo beating Fedal back to back.

 

[TMF]

I agree, especially after 2006/2007. He thought he could just show up and win and failed to start taking it more seriously until about 2012 when he had already started to slow down. If he had his 2017 mentality from 2008 he would’ve won way more than 20 slams imo. 2009 US final was his for the taking if he played more tactically. Plenty more examples.

That's right. Also he got nothing more to prove after he won 15 slams. Without much motivation and no goal/target left, he step off the gas pedal. Had there was always a goal/target for him to chase(e.g. 30 slams), he could have won way more than 20 slams

 

[GabeT]

Which probably would not have happened since Novak would probably have not won 8 more majors against a better generation, which was my point.

my point is that Federer was never 8 slams ahead. That was just a reflection of the age difference. When Fed was 37 Nadal was 32 and Novak was 31. Fed at 37 was ahead of both of them but that would not be the correct comparison. Fed should be comparing with where he was at 31/32. And if you did that you noticed that the Big 3 were basically tied, meaning that they all had roughly the same number of slams at that age . So there was no reason for Fed at 37 to think he was “safe”.

 

[mike danny]

my point is that Federer was never 8 slams ahead. That was just a reflection of the age difference. When Fed was 37 Nadal was 32 and Novak was 31. Fed at 37 was ahead of both of them but that would not be the correct comparison. Fed should be comparing with where he was at 31/32. And if you did that you noticed that the Big 3 were basically tied, meaning that they all had roughly the same number of slams at that age . So there was no reason for Fed at 37 to think he was “safe”.

Yes, but you are assuming that Novak would have managed to reach Fed just because he was 31 which he might not have against a better generation.

 

[GabeT]

Yes, but you are assuming that Novak would have managed to reach Fed just because he was 31 which he might not have against a better generation.

Fed won slams against a lot of non ATGs, it´s not like he only faced peak/prime Rafa and Novak to win. All of them had ups and downs in terms of who they played and all of them know that the level of the competition can change year in year. My point here is that if you are 37 and there are two other great players behind you in total slams and they are 5-6 years younger and have roughly the same number of lamas as you did at their age you probably should expect them to catch up.

 

[mike danny]

Fed won slams against a lot of non ATGs, it´s not like he only faced peak/prime Rafa and Novak to win. All of them had ups and downs in terms of who they played and all of them know that the level of the competition can change year in year. My point here is that if you are 37 and there are two other great players behind you in total slams and they are 5-6 years younger and have roughly the same number of lamas as you did at their age you probably should expect them to catch up.

I feel like we're running in circles here.

Fed after age 31 only won 3 more majors, hence Djoker may have done similarly well instead of the 12 majors he ended up winning. A stronger generation can halt your winning.

 

[Federev]

Nice try, your reply means you know Federer didn’t say any of this and these so-called news sources are sending out misleading information so you have a manufactured discussion.

I think these quotes are from the documentary that’s just come out - or will come out on Prime

 

[GabeT]

I feel like we're running in circles here.

Fed after age 31 only won 3 more majors, hence Djoker may have done similarly well instead of the 12 majors he ended up winning. A stronger generation can halt your winning.

And if Novak had faced other players when he was younger he could have won more as well. That’s true for all of them.

it´s hard to measure but id say Novak simply played better than federer post 31. Novak twice reached all four slam finals in his old age, an incredibly difficult accomplishment. Fed last did it the year he turned 28 IiRC (and no it wasn’t Fedal that stopped him post 30). I think Nadal never even managed that once

 

[GabeT]

That's right. Also he got nothing more to prove after he won 15 slams. Without much motivation and no goal/target left, he step off the gas pedal. Had there was always a goal/target for him to chase(e.g. 30 slams), he could have won way more than 20 slams

Leaving aside that there’s no evidence he ever stepped off the gas the year that Fed reached 15 slams Nadal was already ahead of Fed in slams (adjusted for age). Nadal was winning slams faster than Fed had at the same age. It was clear he was coming for the record as well.

 

[mike danny]

And if Novak had faced other players when he was younger he could have won more as well. That’s true for all of them.

But we're talking about someone in his 30's here after his physical prime. At this point you're supposed to face a younger generation that can potentially halt your winning once you decline.

it´s hard to measure but id say Novak simply played better than federer post 31. Novak twice reached all four slam finals in his old age, an incredibly difficult accomplishment. Fed last did it the year he turned 28 IiRC (and no it wasn’t Fedal that stopped him post 30). I think Nadal never even managed that once

Debatable, really. Only on clay he has played better, but that's it.

 

[GabeT]

But we're talking about someone in his 30's here after his physical prime.

I don’t think you can look at Novak since W18 and say he was past his physical prime. That may be true today but not back then and not for several years

 

[metsman]

Federer was critical of Murray's gamestyle and Djokovic's sportsmanship retiring in matches when he could have stood on court for 15 more minutes and taken a loss. He was obviously 100% right on both counts, people need to get over it.

Ultimately, Murrovic/fans will have endless little brother syndrome because deep down they know Fedal were better/more popular, etc. So we'll keep rehashing this stuff forever.

 

[a10best]

Fed called him young because he is 5.75 yrs younger.

 

[messiahrobins]

It was HIS very own achievements that gave rise to the slam race in the first place, no?

Yep very much so.

 

[mike danny]

I don’t think you can look at Novak since W18 and say he was past his physical prime. That may be true today but not back then and not for several years

Maybe not immediately, but I have a hard time saying he was in his prime after AO 2019

 

[Federev]

Federer was critical of Murray's gamestyle and Djokovic's sportsmanship retiring in matches when he could have stood on court for 15 more minutes and taken a loss. He was obviously 100% right on both counts, people need to get over it.

I mean - there was some merit it that critique right? Weren’t there matches Novak could have just taken the loss for sportsmanship sake?

Maybe there’s another angle tho.

But it seems like maybe this is true.

(Obviously this was something Novak got a handle on.)

 

[Mustard]

I think that was fairly obvious. He was publicly dismissive of Murray as well as they were both rising through the ranks on the ATP. Federer hated his authority as the top dog being challenged in the 2000s.

Federer at 2006 Rome "There is no rivalry between Rafa and myself."

Jason Goodall on commentary during the 2006 Rome final "Long may the non-rivalry continue."

 

[Federev]

Fed did excpetional vs Djoker really from 2006-2012. Especially in 2011/2012 (Rg11, Wimby 12) considering that was Noel prime/peak years. After that he was definitely out of his prime after 2012 so it's obvious against an Atg he would lose.

At the Same age Fed vs Nole would in a best of 10 series, be 7-3 or 6-4 to Fed across all surfaces on balance.

I think this is probably right.

 

[Mustard]

DAY 424,751,031 at TTW:

Djokovic is better
No, Federer is better!
Nu-uh!! It’s Novak
No way! It’s Roger
Djokovic is the best
Federer is
Novak
Roger
No way!!!
Yes way!!!!
No
Yes!!
Federer
Novak!
Roger is better!!!
Shut up!
You suck!
You!
No you!
Djokovic is better
No, Federer is better!
Nu-uh!! It’s Novak
No way! It’s Roger
Djokovic is the best
Federer is
Novak
Roger
No way!!!
Yes way!!!!
No
Yes!!
Federer
Novak!
Roger is better!!!
Shut up!
You suck!
You!
No you!
Djokovic is better
No, Federer is better!
Nu-uh!! It’s Novak
No way! It’s Roger
Djokovic is the best
Federer is
Novak
Roger
No way!!!
Yes way!!!!
No
Yes!!
Federer
Novak!
Roger is better!!!
Shut up!
You suck!
You!
No you!
Federer!

And Nadal is waiting to defeat both of them while always trying his best, no?

 

[GabeT]

Maybe not immediately, but I have a hard time saying he was in his prime after AO 2019

I don’t know how to define prime. But Novak reached all four finals both in 2021 and 2023. You simply don’t do that without a very very high physical level. It’s among the most difficult things to do in tennis. As I recall Federer couldn’t do it once after turning 28 and Nadal never managed to do it even once.

 

[RS]

Federer was critical of Murray's gamestyle and Djokovic's sportsmanship retiring in matches when he could have stood on court for 15 more minutes and taken a loss. He was obviously 100% right on both counts, people need to get over it.

Ultimately, Murrovic/fans will have endless little brother syndrome because deep down they know Fedal were better/more popular, etc. So we'll keep rehashing this stuff forever.

Peak Djokovic vs Peak Murray 10 matches at each slam?

 

[Frenchy-Player]

WATCH: Roger Federer reveals he told some “very personal” things to Novak Djokovic during his retirement that made the Serbian cry; unseen footage confirms :​

WATCH: Roger Federer reveals he told some “very personal” things to Novak Djokovic during his retirement that made the Serbian cry; unseen footage confirms

Roger Federer’s documentary is set to release on Amazon Prime OTT platform next week. 'Federer: Twelve Final Days' will reveal all the behind-the-scenes

firstsportz.com

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1800930740193927513

 

[TennisXpert@2023]

WATCH: Roger Federer reveals he told some “very personal” things to Novak Djokovic during his retirement that made the Serbian cry; unseen footage confirms :​

WATCH: Roger Federer reveals he told some “very personal” things to Novak Djokovic during his retirement that made the Serbian cry; unseen footage confirms

Roger Federer’s documentary is set to release on Amazon Prime OTT platform next week. 'Federer: Twelve Final Days' will reveal all the behind-the-scenes

firstsportz.com

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1800930740193927513

Another clickbait article used as confirmation because Djokovic needs to be seen as included right down to the moment Federer retires and after. Djokovic fans are hypocrites anyway because they are hostile towards Federer but always running towards content to see what he says, especially this part of the documentary. Federer is considered a evil mastermind and part of the establishment that Djokovic participated in two Laver Cups along with his fans wanting Federer to stand up for him during the Covid drama which Djokovic created.

 

[TMF]

Leaving aside that there’s no evidence he ever stepped off the gas the year that Fed reached 15 slams Nadal was already ahead of Fed in slams (adjusted for age).

It's human nature in every sport. When a player(or a team) has a big, comfortable lead, they tends to relax with less pressure. As apposed to a player(team) that is trailing and always playing catch up, they play as if their life depend on it! Federer didn't have nothing more to prove so he took it easy

Being a hunter is much easier than the leader. I told you this many times, you know it's true.

Nadal was winning slams faster than Fed had at the same age. It was clear he was coming for the record as well.

INCORRECT.

When Federer won his 15th with a comfortable lead, Nadal didn't win his 15th until he reaches his 31st birthday

 

[GabeT]

It's human nature in every sport. When a player(or a team) has a big, comfortable lead, they tends to relax with less pressure. As apposed to a player(team) that is trailing and always playing catch up, they play as if their life depend on it! Federer didn't have nothing more to prove so he took it easy

Being a hunter is much easier than the leader. I told you this many times, you know it's true.

There’s no evidence anywhere Fed chose to take the door off the pedal. He was playing everywhere he could. He just simply wasn’t winning as much.

INCORRECT.

When Federer won his 15th with a comfortable lead, Nadal didn't win his 15th until he reaches his 31st birthday

Fed reached 15 slams when he turned 28. As it turns out Nadal would end up with 14 slams the year he turned 28. Basically the same if you are looking at a race and know you have still many more years to play.

Fed in 2009 couldn’t know how many slams Rafa would end up with but he could compare where he and Rafa stood at the same age. That meant comparing Nadal’s results in 2009 vs Fed’s in 2004, the seasons each turned 23. And Nadal was ahead 6-4 in slams.

So Fed in 2009 even after breaking the slam record could see that there was another active player, several years younger than he was, and that was winning slams faster than he had at the same age.

No room to slow down or think you were comfortably ahead

 

[Razer]

Fed reached 15 slams when he turned 28. As it turns out Nadal would end up with 14 slams the year he turned 28. Basically the same if you are looking at a race and know you have still many more years to play.

Fed in 2009 couldn’t know how many slams Rafa would end up with but he could compare where he and Rafa stood at the same age. That meant comparing Nadal’s results in 2009 vs Fed’s in 2004, the seasons each turned 23. And Nadal was ahead 6-4 in slams.

So Fed in 2009 even after breaking the slam record could see that there was another active player, several years younger than he was, and that was winning slams faster than he had at the same age.

No room to slow down or think you were comfortably ahead

Federer never took his foot off the pedestal as @TMF falsely claims, but it is not right to say that Nadal won slams faster than Federer. 16 Slams at 28 were a LOT in 2010 because the tennis landscape and the things we knew back then was very different from what we know now. At that time players were all done by 30, people all struggled to win anything past 30. The 1990s gen type losers were never seen before, the Great Age Shift was also an unknown things back then, Federer had 16 slams which seemed safe at least for us viewers because Nadal type guys never won into their 30s, that sort of a guy was expected to be done by 27. Nadal's main surface was Clay and that surface was a gruelling surface with lot of rallies needing lot of stamina despite the surface being relatively kinder on the knees.

The 1990s gen have a huge role in Federer going from 17 to 20 and for Djokodal going from 12 to 24 & 14 to 22 respectively. Federer never took his foot off the gas but his numbers should have been enough, however the 1990s gen ruined it. They failed to protect Federer's records just like Roddick (Federer's main rival in 00s) failed to protect Sampras's record.

 

[GabeT]

Federer never took his foot off the pedestal as @TMF falsely claims, but it is not right to say that Nadal won slams faster than Federer.

that’s simply not true in the timeframe we are talking about. Remember this is about Fed in 2009 reaching 15 slams and looking around at who could beat that. At that time, in 2009, Fed had as a rival Nadal who, again at that time, was winning slams faster than Fed had at the same age. And that Nadal had shown that he could beat Fed and win slams in all the surfaces.

Fed isn’t dumb and his team isn’t dumb either. They could see the writing on the wall. Nadal was coming for Fed’s records. Of course, no one knew if he would actually do it. But in 2009 Fed couldn’t look at the tennis landscape and reach the conclusion he had a safe lead.

 

[Razer]

that’s simply not true in the timeframe we are talking about. Remember this is about Fed in 2009 reaching 15 slams and looking around at who could beat that. At that time, in 2009, Fed had as a rival Nadal who, again at that time, was winning slams faster than Fed had at the same age. And that Nadal had shown that he could beat Fed and win slams in all the surfaces.

Fed isn’t dumb and his team isn’t dumb either. They could see the writing on the wall. Nadal was coming for Fed’s records. Of course, no one knew if he would actually do it. But in 2009 Fed couldn’t look at the tennis landscape and reach the conclusion he had a safe lead.

Thats not true because Nadal was always a 1 dimensional Pony. Sure he beat Fed at W and AO in that 08-early 09 period but he was injury prone, he was yet to win USO, nobody was gonna say he was winning slams faster just because he had more slams at age 22 than Fed did, thats not how one sees things. Fed had 3 chances out of 4 to win in slams every year while Nadal was a clay courter who was injury prone.

The Slams Race and all did not exist in 2009, Nadal was seen as a guy who dethroned Federer but nobody expected him to win 3 slams an year or 2 slams an year regularly. Federer's 04-07 was a very special type of dominance, nobody anticipated all those feats to be replicated. It was a lot of slams back then, believe me. 16 was a lot. No Clay courter who won a few outside clay was gonna cross it, but then who knew Nadal would win 14 french opens ? I myself thought he could win 7-8 because Sampras won 7 wimbledons and Nadal was considered a clay equivalent of Sampras. Double digit slams at a single slam was unfathomable for everyone. 16th slam for Fed came in Jan 2010 at 28.5 and that was very far off for even Nadal because his fitness was a suspect back then. Like I said, Nadal was expected to retire at 26-27 like Borg.

 

[GabeT]

Thats not true because Nadal was always a 1 dimensional Pony. Sure he beat Fed at W and AO in that 08-early 09 period but he was injury prone, he was yet to win USO, nobody was gonna say he was winning slams faster just because he had more slams at age 22 than Fed did, thats not how one sees things. Fed had 3 chances out of 4 to win in slams every year while Nadal was a clay courter who was injury prone.

The Slams Race and all did not exist in 2009, Nadal was seen as a guy who dethroned Federer but nobody expected him to win 3 slams an year or 2 slams an year regularly. Federer's 04-07 was a very special type of dominance, nobody anticipated all those feats to be replicated. It was a lot of slams back then, believe me. 16 was a lot. No Clay courter who won a few outside clay was gonna cross it, but then who knew Nadal would win 14 french opens ? I myself thought he could win 7-8 because Sampras won 7 wimbledons and Nadal was considered a clay equivalent of Sampras. Double digit slams at a single slam was unfathomable for everyone. 16th slam for Fed came in Jan 2010 at 28.5 and that was very far off for even Nadal because his fitness was a suspect back then. Like I said, Nadal was expected to retire at 26-27 like Borg.

Nobody knew how it would play out exactly. I agree with that.

but if nobody in 2009 expected Nadal to have 3 slam seasons (something he did the following year and would have done the year after that if not for Novak) then that just tells me they knew little about tennis. Nadal had shown he could beat Fed anywhere, in all three surfaces, and including at what was seen as his best slam Wimbledon, and he was barely 23.

the point is that no one with Fed’s understanding of the game could look at the situation in 2009 and think, my record is safe.

 

[Razer]

but if nobody in 2009 expected Nadal to have 3 slam seasons (something he did the following year and would have done the year after that if not for Novak) then that just tells me they knew little about tennis.

Nonsense.

Do you know what a 3 Slam season was in 2000s ?

From 1975 till 2009 only Wilander in his freak season of 1988 had won 3 slams among men. Federer in his peak quickly had 3 seasons of 3 slams each and even in 2005 it could have been another 3 slam season. There is a reason why Federer was worshipped by fans because his rise and dominance was unreal and never seen before. Even Sampras did not have a 3 slam season, that's how rare it was.

2010-2023 saw 5 seasons of 3 slams each by Djokodal, nobody could have anticipated that in 2009, nobody did back then. Not even former players thought Nadal would have even 1 season of 3 Slams, that 2010 season is a lucky fluke for Nadal because Fed was declined and Novak was yet to hit his peak, thats how Nadal won 3 that year. You are now looking back at history and saying Fed should have anticipated it but if you were watching Tennis in 2009 then you would have known that a 3 season was very rare and nobody expected a clay specialist Nadal who was injury prone to have 3 slams in a season, Federer's feats were really special back then.

 

[GabeT]

Nonsense.

Do you know what a 3 Slam season was in 2000s ?

From 1975 till 2009 only Wilander in his freak season of 1988 had won 3 slams among men. Federer in his peak quickly had 3 seasons of 3 slams each and even in 2005 it could have been another 3 slam season. There is a reason why Federer was worshipped by fans because his rise and dominance was unreal and never seen before. Even Sampras did not have a 3 slam season, that's how rare it was.

2010-2023 saw 5 seasons of 3 slams each by Djokodal, nobody could have anticipated that in 2009, nobody did back then. Not even former players thought Nadal would have even 1 season of 3 Slams, that 2010 season is a lucky fluke for Nadal because Fed was declined and Novak was yet to hit his peak, thats how Nadal won 3 that year. You are now looking back at history and saying Fed should have anticipated it but if you were watching Tennis in 2009 then you would have known that a 3 season was very rare and nobody expected a clay specialist Nadal who was injury prone to have 3 slams in a season, Federer's feats were really special back then.

Nadal had a two slam season just the year before. By 2009 he had beaten Fed at slams at all three surfaces. No one thought of Nadal as a “clay specialist” by that time, at least no one who understood tennis. Sure, Nadal was and is much better at clay than the other surfaces. But if you can beat what was then the best grass and HC player in both grass and HC slam finals it shows you are very versatile.

I repeat, in 2009 Nadal was running ahead of Fed in number of slams at the same age and by age 22 had won slams in all surfaces, something Fed wouldn’t do until he was 27, almost 28. There was no reason whatsoever to think that Nadal was done winning or would be soon done winning.

 

[Razer]

World was different in 2009, what we know today we did not know then, not even former players knew.

- Nadal was expected to retire even before Federer despite being 5 years younger because he was expected to get injured in his knees by age 26 given how he played chasing every single ball.
- Novak was a Beta back then like Murray, nobody expected he would rise to the role of an alpha in 2011 like he did.
- Federer was still thought to divide slams between him and Rafa 2010-onwards, his aura outside clay was such even then. Rafa winning wimbledon/AO did not reduce Fed to a nobody, Federer quickly won W and AO in the subsequent editions after those losses and Nadal could not even defend, thats how much injury prone he was, people knew this back, so he being 23 changed nothing because people gave him another 3-4 years max.
- Great Age Shift of playing playing into 30s was not known then
- Nobody knew 1990s Gens would be so miserable groups of cucks that the best of that gen would be a Roddick level player, thats drought never seen
before.

 

[GabeT]

World was different in 2009, what we know today we did not know then, not even former players knew.

- Nadal was expected to retire even before Federer despite being 5 years younger because he was expected to get injured in his knees by age 26 given how he played chasing every single ball.
- Novak was a Beta back then like Murray, nobody expected he would rise to the role of an alpha in 2011 like he did.
- Federer was still thought to divide slams between him and Rafa 2010-onwards, his aura outside clay was such even then. Rafa winning wimbledon/AO did not reduce Fed to a nobody, Federer quickly won W and AO in the subsequent editions after those losses and Nadal could not even defend, thats how much injury prone he was, people knew this back, so he being 23 changed nothing because people gave him another 3-4 years max.
- Great Age Shift of playing playing into 30s was not known then
- Nobody knew 1990s Gens would be so miserable groups of cucks that the best of that gen would be a Roddick level player, thats drought never seen
before.

Online posters may have expected Nadal to retire. Fed and his team are much smarter than that